Laserfiche WebLink
<br />00155j <br /> <br />Chapter 2 - Alternatives <br /> <br />ill addition, the Dam Removal alternative would allow for future recreational use and <br />development of this reach of the river, independent of this fish passage project. <br /> <br />Both whitewater park options involve some level of dam removal, and the stair-step drops option <br />would maintain the water surface elevation at the Ute Water pump plant. However, other options <br />to keep the Ute Water pump plant operational following dam removal are listed on page 14. <br />Reclamation estimates costs between $150,000 and $300,000 for the least expensive option. <br />Consequently, Reclamation believes the stair-step drops and whitewater run options are not <br />economical solutions for this fish passage project. <br /> <br />Environmental Commitments <br /> <br />The fish passage alternatives include measures as needed to: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />protect the ability of Ute Water to pump from the Colorado River <br />protect illterstate 70 and the railroad bed from erosion <br />ensure ease of fish movement and selectively reduce upstream passage of nonnative fish <br />mitigate impacts to the historic qualities of the Price-Stubb Dam <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The degree to which proposed measures would alleviate concerns for potentially affected <br />resources and interests are discussed within the applicable sections of the next chapter. <br /> <br />To comply with requirements of the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic <br />Preservation Act, Reclamation will consult with the Service and the SHPO on our Proposed <br />Action. Consultation results will be reported in the Final Environmental Assessment. <br /> <br />Reclamation and/or construction contractors will obtain approvals under the Clean Water Act <br />before beginning work in the river. Permit conditions will be environmental commitments for <br />the fish passage action. <br /> <br />18 <br />